Ideology, Service, Change: Is Peace Possible Without Sacrifice?

People say they want an end to violence. What they mean is, they want their opposing party to yield in deference to their will. Everyone wishes for world peace, but so many who wish continue to exacerbate conflict and contention. What they really mean is, they wish to use the language of peace to subdue their opponent to give in and capitulate. There are those who would invoke the name of peace, high ideals, and religion to achieve their own corrupt ends. There are those who would use religion to deceive the masses. The sign of true faith is selflessness. It is difficult to say something is faith if it benefits oneself. The touchstone of true faith is that someone sacrifices for it.

The sign of love is fortitude under the fire of Divine decree. Under the banner of Divine principles it is not easy to say that a thing is an act of faith, and yet have it violate the spirit of the principle. Always, if something is to be identified positively as faith it must entail sacrifice of the self, subjugation of the promptings of the ego, and pain. This does not mean that a thing that does not involve pain, cannot be an act of faith as well. It just means that it cannot be positively identified as such, it may be veiled or unknown or unclear to the eyes of the observer. If too much time passes in this grey, middle ground of things being done that do not involve sacrifice or pain, it may lead to a creeping suspicion that one is not actually abiding by the provisions of faith. How could you know if this were not the case? Unless, some or all of your deeds were sacrificial and obviously faithful? Ultimately, it remains for the conscience of each person to determine what proportion of their lives and opinions derive from dedication to principle and entail sacrifice. If one suspects that there may not be enough selflessness manifest obviously, to make the argument clear that his or her behavior is principle-based or sacrificial, the question ought to be asked, “are we sure we are making every effort we can to work for the world and for the Cause of truth?”

Sacrifice and selflessness manifest themselves as servitude at all times and to all wills surrounding you in life. Servitude emerges from the healthy expression of faith in an ideal. An ideal is postulated and people believe in it. Those who sacrifice to achieve its ends and accommodate their desires and will to its imperatives and needs become the faithful. Only by sacrificing of our selves can we really alter the course of how things turn out. When mankind continues in its selfish ways, the disintegration of the social fabric continues on pace with how it has been in the recent past. When individuals commit themselves to a new ideal, and sacrifice their inclinations and drives in favor of its beautiful and productive principles, society progresses as a whole, as a result of their cumulative contributions and achievements summed.

Ideology provides the ideal. Faith links the believer from the ideal to the practical expression of sacrificing his or her own will in favor of humanity’s betterment through the principles enunciated by the ideal. This is servitude. Cumulatively, individuals contribute to the process of change, and ultimately to enduring transformation, in themselves and society.

Ideology is the object of faith. Service is its expression. Change is the social result.

Love cannot be commanded; it must be invited. War cannot be threatened into ceasing; it must concede in the wake of sacrifice and pain. Conflict ends not when the spirit of shamelessness has lost its willingness to fight over petty wounds; conflict ends when entire peoples pursue disarmament as unilaterally as principle and not as a strategic expedient while peace talks allow restocking of ammunition supplies. Conflict ends when the aggressor loses the moral stomach to continue to slaughter hapless millions after those millions have decided to disarm and demilitarize themselves with complete willingness to endure whatever casualties may be incurred as a consequence. So far, disarmament has never resulted in the loss of life. So far, ironically, arms have never protected a people from injury or harm. All that arms have done is exacerbate and draw forth the blood lust of one’s opponents. All bloodshed has resulted from the response to aggression across national borders.

We cannot overlook the fact that the existence of weaponry, small arms or military grade, have always been correlated with the shedding of blood and the loss of life, whether it be on the social level of armed felonies or the multi-national level of war and armed conflict. Large militaries are the greatest instigator of war and destruction. Demilitarization and disarmament are the single most influential correlant with peace and harmony. It devolves upon us to determine the course best fit for our moral destinies based on these facts.

No arms are necessary beyond what is required for the maintenance of a nation’s internal security and order. These are wielded by the police force. Civilians should not require them. The police are regulated by governmental over site and internal affairs agencies, and given a mandate and a budget by the state. Confident control over their actions is intrinsic to participation in the social order itself.

Internationally speaking, no more arms are needed than a global government would need to resist the invasion of one of the most powerful nation’s military’s into another state. Whatever the strongest armed nation’s military might may be, this defines the standard of the minimal armaments required of a global peace keeping force under the command of global government authority. If demilitarization could be achieved unanimously and completely, the amount of peace keeping force needed to be maintained by a global government would be minimal, including only what is necessary for intervention in the case of an emergency of a hidden national force showing aggression against another nation unexpectedly. The tighter the web of international communication and informed and consensual disarmament, the less likely such a possibility, and the less the total amount of military force needed by the global government for maintenance of order.

War is the result of our own weapons and the fetish for power that they symbolize. The result is the suffering of all mankind. The aggressor deprives himself of international support. Hiding behind his nukes, his people starve under embargo’s imposed by unanimous international sanctions. Aggression deprives both sides of prosperity. Insecurity drives the production and acquisition of weaponry. With 5 inch heels and 1000’s of nuclear warheads, Kim Jong Il reaps the reward of a watery grave and the disgust of countless millions. Ahmadinejad earns the embarrassment and rebellion of young Persians all over the world.